R v Wav

The case of R v Wav involves an appeal by the applicant against both her conviction and sentence. The applicant, Wav, was convicted of causing harm to a child by failing to provide the child with adequate medical treatment, contrary to section 364 of the Criminal Code. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wording of the indictment was sufficiently aligned with the statutory offence to uphold the conviction, given that it used wording from Form 211 of Schedule 3 of the Criminal Practice Rules. Additionally, the applicant sought leave to appeal against her sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The court addressed the first issue by examining whether the disparity in wording between the approved form and the statute altered the essential nature of the charge. The court recognised that section 707 of the Criminal Code provides that a form prescribed under a rule of court is sufficient for the purpose for which it is to be used. However, it also noted that case authority suggests that if such a disparity changes the essential nature of the charge, section 707 will not be sufficient to uphold the conviction. The court determined that the additional words in the indictment did not change the essential nature of the charge and thus, granted leave to amend the indictment to include the additional words “when WAV knew or ought reasonably to have known that would be likely to cause harm to WI”.

Regarding the applicant’s sentence, the court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment with parole eligibility set at one third or 12 months. The court found that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the offence and thus, denied leave to appeal against the sentence.